Totalitarianism: our political enemies committed no crime, so we must chsnge the law!

[C0ckney]

ned, libel laws weren't used against anyone here, which are a civil matter. i was just clarifying a couple of points which had been made about it.

the two BNP members were prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, which is a criminal offence, and were found not guilty of it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by C0ckney
to clear one or two things up about english law regarding defamation. the burden of proof is on the accused, but there are good reasons behind this. the accuser must prove that the accused has published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual, or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

So what? If the person is a public figure (esp. a politician), and it's true, then good for the person who defamed him

[Ned]

Cockney, thanks for the clarification. I was wondering how the government could bring a libel suit. But I also wonder how there could be any law that would allow the government to prosecute anyone for speech which is in the form of one's personal opinion.

[C0ckney]

kuci, did you not read the paragraph below that?

[Dr Strangelove]

Here's what you do about guys like the BNP. You wait until someone is hurt by one of their members, you get the perpetrator to confess that he acted under their influence, then the victim takes the group to court and sues them for a large enough sum to shut them down. It has worked against the KKK in the US.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by C0ckney
kuci, did you not read the paragraph below that?

Yes, and the bit below that said the burden of proof was on the accused.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
"Hate" laws

"Hate crimes" as they are inaccurately labled in the U.S. are aimed at crimes that have two kinds of victims. Like all crimes, the first victim is the direct victim, the poor person who is killed, beat up, or raped. But hate crimes are also aimed at terrorizing a minority community, to keep the members of that ethnic group "in their place." The direct victim is targetted, not because of something that person did or because the crime is a random act, but because the direct victim is a member of an ethnic group which the purpetrators seek to terrorize.

Laws against "hate crimes"
Domestic terrorism

________________________________________

This having been said, the "crime" described in the OP is not a hate crime. It may be hate. But it's not a crime.

Spouting off, criticizing a religion or a political party or whatever, is no crime...not even if the opinion is misguided. We need criticism in order to learn of our weaknesses, so that we may improve ourselves.

Trying to make someone agree with your point of view by outlawing their own.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
While certainly the speeches were "intollerant," I am thoroughly shocked and appalled that any "free" government would try to silence that speech through the legal process. Speech, in my humble opinion, must be unregulated by the government in any manner, otherwise you do not have free speech. You instead do have a form of thought control where non standard ideas are outlawed.

Britain clearly is not a free land.

OMG, I agree with Ned!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


"Hate crimes" as they are inaccurately labled in the U.S. are aimed at crimes that have two kinds of victims. Like all crimes, the first victim is the direct victim, the poor person who is killed, beat up, or raped. But hate crimes are also aimed at terrorizing a minority community, to keep the members of that ethnic group "in their place." The direct victim is targetted, not because of something that person did or because the crime is a random act, but because the direct victim is a member of an ethnic group which the purpetrators seek to terrorize.

Laws against "hate crimes"
Domestic terrorism

________________________________________

This having been said, the "crime" described in the OP is not a hate crime. It may be hate. But it's not a crime.

Spouting off, criticizing a religion or a political party or whatever, is no crime...not even if the opinion is misguided. We need criticism in order to learn of our weaknesses, so that we may improve ourselves.

Trying to make someone agree with your point of view by outlawing their own.

QFT.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Here's what you do about guys like the BNP. You wait until someone is hurt by one of their members, you get the perpetrator to confess that he acted under their influence, then the victim takes the group to court and sues them for a large enough sum to shut them down. It has worked against the KKK in the US.

Is there any evidence that the BNP encourages its members to engage in violence? If not then your plan would never work.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, and the bit below that said the burden of proof was on the accused.

what's your point exactly?

i can explain it again, but i'm not sure if i can put it any more simply.

[Kuciwalker]

I think any system in which the burden of proof is on the accused is fundamentally broken.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I think any system in which the burden of proof is on the accused is fundamentally broken.

It varies under english law. In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the accuser. In most civil cases (excluding defamation) the burden of proof is still on the accuser but a lower standard of evidence is required. Only in defamation cases AFAIK does the person accused have to prove their defence. However the accuser has to prove that they have been libelled/slandered - so there is a burden of proof on both parties. It is a lot less clear cut than other types of legal case.

Bottom line - if you can't justify it, don't say/publish it.

[Kuciwalker]

Bottom line - if you can't justify it, don't say/publish it.

No, bottom line - if you can't afford to justify it to the level required in court, you're ****ed.

[CerberusIV]

The cost is an issue. The British tabloid press (a low and fairly despicable bunch) manage quite happily under english libel law because most of their victims can't afford to lose and the newspapers can afford to pay up when they do.

Attempts over the years to reform the way defamation cases are handled and reduce the cost have not really achieved anything.

Against that, the US situation where the defamed person has to prove malice, i.e. that it was a personal attack, is ridiculously stringent since that would be very difficult to prove in most cases but leaves the door wide open to libel anyone you like.

No wonder your political campaigns throw sh1t like there is no tomorrow.